Answers Research Journal 5 (2012):205–216. www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v5/young-earth-creationism-theistic-evolutionists.pdf

Is Young-Earth a Bad Choice? An Answer to Theistic Evolutionists

Callie Joubert, P. O. Box 515, Hyper by the Sea, Durban, South Africa 4025.

Abstract Recently a prominent theistic evolutionist claimed that young-earth creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and theology; young-earth creationism is an unnecessary choice. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate these claims. Of first importance is to know why and when decisions go awry, from both a psychological and biblical perspective. I then present the reasons why four scientists choose to believe that young-earth creationism is a true representation of the biblical record of creation. The third section argues that any understanding of Scripture that excludes or indicts the divine Himself is necessarily flawed and false.

Keywords: choice, decision making, judgment, theistic , young-earth creationism

Introduction as follows: “I find , or BioLogos, An examination of the writings of several to be by far the most scientifically consistent and prominent evolutionists has shown that young-earth spiritually satisfying of the alternatives” (Collins creationists are rarely accurately portrayed (Bell 2007, p. 210). 2002). They create the impression that creationists Philosopher Dr. Francis Beckwith agrees with are either scientifically incompetent or that the Collins, explaining that he is sympathetic to quality of their work falls below accepted scientific atheist ’ bewilderment of why standards (Kulikovsky 2008). The aim of such ploys Dr. —a Harvard University trained is to dismiss or diminish arguments in support of the paleontologist— biblical teaching of creation. These tactics, however, has embraced what appears to many Christians as a do not stop with secular evolutionists. false choice between one controversial interpretation of Recently Dr. Francis Collins, a world-renowned Scripture (young-earth creationism) and abandoning geneticist and founder of The BioLogos Foundation,1 Christianity altogether (Beckwith 2009, p. 58). wrote that Seemingly, Wise’s only mistake is that he has Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of not chosen theistic evolution. Totally absent from intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in Beckwith’s discussion, however, is a presentation of its theology. Its persistence is thus one of the great the reasons why Wise chose to believe that young- puzzles and great tragedies of our time. By attacking earth creationism is a true representation of the the fundamentals of virtually every branch of science, biblical record of creation. it widens the chasm between the scientific and For the purposes of this paper, I have narrowed spiritual , just at a time where a pathway the alternatives down to two. The first, the secular toward harmony is desperately needed (Collins 2007, evolutionist position is expressed by professor of p. 177). biology Douglas Futuyma as follows: Collins and president of BioLogos professor of Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the biology, Dr. Darrel Falk, think that the young-earth possible explanations for the origin of living things. creationist “perspective is the equivalent of insisting Organisms either appeared on the earth fully that two plus two is really not equal to four” (Collins developed or they did not. If they did not, they must 2007, p. 174). Young-earth creationism is therefore have developed from preexisting species by some an unnecessary and profoundly dangerous choice process of modification. If they did appear in a fully between the available alternatives (Collins 2007, developed state, they must indeed have been created pp. 178, 211). Collins words his preferred choice by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural

1 The BioLogos Foundation consists of a group of Christians—scientists, philosophers, theologians, pastors and educators—who believe “that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation” (BioLogos).

ISSN: 1937-9056 Copyright © 2012, 2016 , Inc. All content is owned by Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) unless otherwise indicated. AiG consents to unlimited copying and distribution of print copies of Answers Research Journal articles for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and its website, www.answersresearchjournal.org, are acknowledged as the publication source; and the integrity of the work is not compromised in any way. For website and other electronic distribution and publication, AiG consents to republication of article abstracts with direct links to the full papers on the ARJ website. All rights reserved. For more information write to: Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048, Attn: Editor, Answers Research Journal.

The views expressed are those of the writer(s) and not necessarily those of the Answers Research Journal Editor or of Answers in Genesis. 206 C. Joubert

process could possibly form inanimate molecules into (or choice) is the process which leads a person to an elephant or a redwood tree in one step (Futuyma choose between two or more alternatives. The same 1983, p. 197). point can be expressed in the reverse: the quality The second alternative, the theistic evolutionist of one’s choices depends on the sophistication of the position, is represented by philosopher Richard preceding judging process. Thirdly, a decision maker’s Swinburne. In his words, it judgment always happens in relation to some point is immensely unlikely that there would be humans of reference, in this case knowledge and evidence. unless either God made them by special creation, The point of reference serves at least five purposes: or made just those laws and provided just those (1) it directs interpretation of data; (2) it provides the conditions which would allow the evolution of rationale (reasons) why a decision maker chooses for humans from some initial state of the Universe. or against a particular alternative; (3) it helps the In 1859 Darwin produced his explanation of why decision maker to make sense (the comprehending, there were complexly organized humans and understanding, explaining) of puzzles, such as the animals in terms of the laws of evolution operating persistence of young-earth creationism that is a on much simpler organisms. His explanation is puzzle to Collins; (4) it provides standards or rules surely correct (Swinburne 2001, p. 315). for perceiving, believing, and action; (5) the point of It is clear that the atheistic and theistic evolutionist reference assumes the status of authority. In sum, positions place before the decision maker a forced how decision makers judge, why, and with what choice: either the one or the other option, but not effects are central questions for people interested both. In other words, either a grammatical-historical in decision making. Finally, since conclusions are understanding of the biblical record of creation (a the end result of the mental process of judging, it is special creation in mature form in six literal days important to know that conclusions rest on, or follow of 24 hours each) or evolution over billions of years, from, premises (suppositions, propositions). Premises including the assumption that humans evolved include both factual content and value content. The from some ape-like creatures and the existence of crucial point is that choices involve both. As we shall suffering and death before the Fall. see, for young-earth creationists, the facts of Scripture In the rest of this paper I will show why and cannot be separated from the value of Scripture, just when decisions go awry, from both a psychological as the value of Scripture is inseparable from the facts and biblical perspective. I will then present the recorded in it. reasons why four scientists choose to believe that It will therefore be useful to note the reference young-earth creationism is a true representation of points of, respectively, young-earth creationists and the biblical record of creation: Drs. Jerry Bergman, theistic evolutionists. Young-earth creationists make , Andrew Snelling, and Kurt Wise. the following two affirmations and denials: The third section will offer the following argument: I. We affirm that the scientific aspects of creation any understanding of Scripture that excludes or are important, but are secondary in importance to indicts the divine Himself is necessarily flawed and the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as false. Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge. We deny that the doctrines of Creator and creation Section I: can ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Why Decisions Go Awry Christ, for the teachings of Genesis are foundational Decision implies judgment and choice—the word to the gospel and indeed to all biblical doctrines “decision” means “to cut” between alternatives (directly and indirectly). (Drummond 2001, p. 7). According to Robert Sternberg II. We affirm that the 66 books of the are the the “goal of judgment and decision making is to select written word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and from among choices or to evaluate opportunities” inerrant throughout (in all the original autographs). (Sternberg 2003, p. 404). Michael Eysenck and Mark Its assertions are factually true. It is the supreme Keane refer to judgment as the process by which authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, people draw conclusions from the knowledge and but in everything it teaches. evidence available to them (Eysenck and Keane 2000, We deny that the Bible’s authority is limited to p. 475). spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes and we deny Firstly, judgment and decision making are what the exclusion of its authority from its assertions related cognitive psychologists refer to as higher-order to such fields as history and science (Mortenson and mental functions of a person; it involves the intellect. Ury 2008, pp. 453–454). Secondly, there exists an integral link between the In contrast, theistic evolutionists, such as Collins, two, but judgment logically is the primary factor. affirm that “science is the only reliable way to In other words, more important than a decision understand the natural world” (Collins 2007, p. 6; cf. Is Young-Earth Creationism a Bad Choice? An Answer to Theistic Evolutionists 207

Lamoureux 2010, p. 45).2 “Only reliable way” implies, Giberson and Collins state that “None of these of course, the only authoritative source of knowledge ‘explanations’ can possibly be actual descriptions” of the natural world. Yet there are phenomena (Giberson and Collins 2011, p. 206). Genesis 1 and 2 that cannot be explained by science. For example, “can best be understood as poetry and allegory rather Dr. Karl Giberson, former professor of physics at than a literal scientific description of origins” (Collins Eastern Nazarene College, agrees with Collins that 2007, p. 206). the problem of evil in the world “has no satisfactory Let us now find out why and when decisions go answer whatsoever” (Giberson and Collins 2011, awry. p. 128). Collins also admits that “at the present time we simply do not know” how “self-replicating Decisions from a psychological perspective organisms arise” on earth “in the first place”; Cognitive psychologists tell us that a problem begins No current hypothesis comes close to explaining how when a problem is not adequately conceptualized. The in the space of a mere 150 million years, the prebiotic reason is simple: one’s solution depends on a clear environment that existed on planet Earth gave rise to concept (understanding) of a problem (Eysenck and life” (Collins 2007, p. 90). Keane 2000, p. 403; Sternberg 2003, p. 360ff). In the Nevertheless, they consider that science is more debate between evolutionists and creationists, Collins reliable than the Bible, even on topics about which seems to think that the problem is one of science science is silent. The belief that the complexity of versus the Bible, hence he writes that young-earth- earthly life points to “the handiwork of an intelligent creationists “see scientific advances as threatening designer” has also now been turned “upside down” by to God” and he seems bewildered that young-earth science, says Collins (2007, p. 86). Seemingly, this must creationism “is one of the great puzzles and great be so because once the universe came into existence tragedies of our time” (Collins 2007, pp. 176, 177). with the big bang and since evolution got underway Firstly, what young-earth creationists have argued no “ intervention was required” (Collins is that scientific findings are always interpreted in 2007, pp. 200, 201). But Collins also announces the terms of a framework (cf. Oard 2009; Sarfati 1999), following falsehood: God intentionally “chose the be it the age of the earth in (cf. Mortenson elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, 2004; Mortenson 2008, pp. 79–104) or the human plants, and animals of all sorts,” including human person as a brain in neuroscience or philosophy beings (Collins 2007, p. 201). The reader will search (Joubert 2011). Secondly, young-earth creationists in vain for a single text or statement in the whole of have repeatedly and consistently argued that the Scripture where it is written that “God intentionally debate between evolutionism and creationism centers chose evolution to create life.” It is good to remember around two issues at the core of their : (1) that “Every word of God is pure . . . Do not add to His the and character of the Creator, and (2) the words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” authority and inerrancy of Scripture on all matters (Proverbs 30:5–6). about which it speaks.3 But nowhere, at least to this Instead of affirming the plain meaning of the writer’s knowledge, has any young-earth creationist Genesis record of creation, rejected empirical scientific findings. Moreover, they That Adam was created from dust and God’s breath; have repeatedly and consistently argued that variation Eve was created from Adam’s rib; the animals, fish within natural (biblical) kinds is a scientific fact, but and birds were created by divine commands: ‘let not atom to animal to human evolution (Sarfati 1999; there be . . .,’ Spetner 1998). The name logicians created for Collins’

2 Giberson and Collins make the following categorical statement: “There has been no scientific discovery since Darwin—not one—which has suggested that evolution is not the best explanation for the origin of species” (Giberson and Collins 2011, pp. 21–22). Scientists such as molecular biologist and physician and physicist Lee Spetner concluded differently. Denton closed his thorough examination of Darwinistic science on the following note: “Of course, the triumph [of the Darwinian thesis] is only psychological and subjective. The rationalizations are unconvincing to anyone not emotionally committed to the defence of Darwinian theory. To an outsider from the community of belief, they merely tend to emphasize the metaphysical nature of evolutionary claims and the lack of any sort of rational or empirical basis . . . . Put simply, no one has ever observed the interconnected continuum of functional forms linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature” (Denton 1985, p. 353). I will add, neither has it ever existed in the mind of the Creator. Spetner concluded his examination of the so-called “neo-Darwinian theory” as follows: “It claims to account for all evolutionary change and the origin of all living things. But this grand claim is not supported by evidence” (Spetner 1998, p. 177). 3 Creationists such as Terry Mortenson (2009b) and (2001) have shown that, in order to make their case, theistic evolutionists must reject the six literal 24-hour days of creation for “the idea of billions of years, as taught by the scientific establishment” (Mortenson 2009b, p. 1). The same holds true of non-evolutionist day-age views (Ham 2007; Ham, Mortenson, and Wieland 2003; Mortenson 2004; Mortenson 2009a). A review of the criticisms reveals three facts: (1) there is a real conflict between science and biblical Christianity (Bergman 2010); (2) arguments in favor of a non-literal understanding of the Genesis record of Creation amount to a rejection of biblical authority (Ham 2001; Ham, Mortenson, and Wieland 2003), which (3) leads to a questioning of the nature and character of God (Grigg 1996; Mortenson 2009b). 208 C. Joubert problem is the red herring fallacy. The “red herring” evolutionists adopt a card-stacking approach to both is an argument that diverts the course of a discussion Scripture and science, which “ignores evidence on to irrelevant or other topics. In other words, Collins the other side of a question. From all the available is drawing an irrelevant and false conclusion: young- facts, the person arguing selects only those that will earth creationists find his evolutionary hypothesis build the best (or worst) possible case” (Troyka 1996, biblically objectionable therefore they are rejecting pp. 146–147). For example, Alex Williams’ (2006) science. review of Falk’s (2004) book, Coming to peace with There is another insight of cognitive psychologists science: Bridging the worlds between faith and biology, relevant to our discussion. When a person is faced with led him to conclude that a choice between alternatives, one must first find out Falk selects evidence to suit his argument, is ignorant whether the alternative is truly a valid alternative; by of YEC [young-earth creationism] critiques of his checking it against reality. Does it give a coherent and material, and so fails to critically assess the real consistent account of the kinds of entities that exist issues (Williams 2006, p. 48). in the world, their natures, and the presence of evil Prominent University of Chicago professor of (suffering and death) in the world? There seems to be Jerry Coyne concluded his review four options available to the choice between A and B: of two books by theistic evolutionists this way: a. Reject B in favor of A. At t empt s t o re c onc i le G od a nd evolut ion ke ep r ol l i ng of f b. Reject A in favor of B. the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because c. Combine, mix or blend A and B into, say, C. the reconciliation never works (Coyne 2009). d. Don’t choose. A third thing cognitive psychologists share with Option a. and b. is an either/or choice, and c. us is: people often tell others what they want them to presents a synthesis, or compromise position. Option hear or out of a fear of what others would say of them. c. seems the “harmony view” is the position of theistic When this happens, we are most vulnerable to danger evolutionists. Collins puts it as follows: “[T]he BioLogos (Drummond 2001, pp. 21ff.). According to Scripture, [theistic evolution] position is the very harmony that “The fear of man brings a snare . . .” (Proverbs 29:25), it creates between warring factions” (Collins 2007, and the tendency to give in under peer or cultural p. 203).4 There are at least two problems with a pressure is nowhere more evident than in Galatians harmony view or middle-of-the-road choice. 2:11–14. In the words of Terry Mortenson: “Paul First, distrust its truth. Why? Proponents of describes Peter’s succumbing to it as he fell into such a choice assume that truth lies in the middle hypocrisy and subtle gospel-subverting behaviour of two opposing positions (for theistic evolutionists, because of the fear of man” (Mortenson 2008, p. 80). it is between young-earth creationism and secular Collins quotes Augustine who said, amongst other evolutionism). Given two opposing views and a middle things, that “it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing” one between them, the truth is just as likely to be at for an unbeliever to hear a Christian, “presumably one end of the spectrum as in the middle. It is not to giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,” talking be supposed, however, that the advocacy of a choice nonsense of topics that cannot be verified from the on the grounds that it is between two extremes is Bible. But Augustine also thought that Christians dishonest. But it is suspect if your only reasons for ought to show that their Scriptures do not contradict arguing for its acceptance are because God must the “facts which [the unbelievers] have learned from have been the cause of evolution and your absolute experience in the light of reason” (Collins 2007, p. 157). authority on matters about which the Bible speaks However, if it is assumed that Augustine’s words mean are the inventions of man.5 Second, those who adopt that Christians are at liberty to re-interpret the plain a middle-of-the-road choice tend to obscure real meaning of the biblical record of creation in ways that differences between opposing positions. Theistic is acceptable to the scientific consensus, then we will

4 In Collins’ view the factions are and agnosticism (science trumps faith), young-earth creationism (faith trumps science), the Movement (science needs divine help), and BioLogos (theistic evolution; science and faith in harmony)—see Collins 2007, pp. 159–211. 5 Giberson and Collins wrote, “the authors are also convinced that there are certain theological truths—like God is the Creator—that must be integrated into any understanding of nature if it is to be a Christian understanding” (Giberson and Collins 2011, p. 8). The authors are absolutely right; otherwise the result is secular anti-God evolutionism, plain and simple. But inserting God into the secular evolutionary story of the origins of the universe and life on earth is not necessarily Christian in any sense of the word. It is especially non-Christian if your conception of the Creator is less than what the Bible reveals about Him: being almighty, all-knowing, and absolutely trustworthy! To hold that science is the only reliable source of knowledge of the natural world, as Collins does, is to set oneself up as more knowledgeable and trustworthy than the Bible (the Word of God) on the matters about which it speaks. 6 Although theistic evolutionists are fond of referring to Augustine as an authority on how the days of creation are to be understood, it is hardly ever mentioned that Augustine took Genesis 2:4 to indicate that everything was created instantaneously, including the creation of the human body and soul, and the distinct kinds of plants and animals. Another important point, also hardly ever mentioned, is that he relied almost exclusively on the Latin Bible, since he did not know Hebrew and only acquired Greek in later life (see, for example, Kulikovsky 2007, pp. 208–209; Mook 2008, pp. 35–38). Is Young-Earth Creationism a Bad Choice? An Answer to Theistic Evolutionists 209 strongly disagree.6 A different way to make the same tactics) (2 Corinthians 2:11). One of evolutionists’ point is to note that a green traffic light means that favorite ploys is to raise doubt in the nature and we have a right of way at a junction. It does not mean character of the Word of God. The reason is very that the road is clear. simple: if they can succeed in raising doubt in the Because we are faced with a problem—a choice minds of people about its truthfulness, then it is a between opposing views—it is important to muster very short step before they will reject its authority. In sufficient information about the alternatives. the Garden of Eden, Satan succeeded in doing exactly However, important to know is what the provider of that, hence the apostle Paul’s warning to Christians: the information wants you not to consider. We have But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve already noted that Giberson and Collins are adamant by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted that the description of Adam being created from dust from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Corinthians and God’s breath, and Eve being created from Adam’s 11:3). rib or side cannot “possibly be actual descriptions” In the Garden, Satan approached Eve with what (Giberson and Collins 2011, p. 206). Why can they God had indeed spoken, but with a twist. He admitted not be actual descriptions? If they are, then theistic its truth in the form of a question, and then went on evolutionists cannot continue believing that Eve to deny its literal meaning (Genesis 3:1, 4). Satan’s evolved from some ape-like creature. issue with the spoken word of God at the beginning In other words, the existence of Eve and how she of creation is again evident at the time he confronted was created by the Creator serve as barriers to the the incarnate Word of God by means of the written credibility of the evolutionary story of origins. In 1 Word of God, right before He commenced His public Corinthians 11:8 Paul wrote that “. . . man is not ministry (Matthew 4:1–10; cf. Luke 4:1–13). Four from woman, but woman from man” (cf. verse 12). points are worth highlighting here. 1 Timothy 2:13 also unequivocally states that “For We have already alluded to the first point. Satan’s Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Contra Giberson work has never changed since the beginning of and Collins, the apostle Paul believed that Genesis creation; his special target is Christians, and his is recorded history, thus that Eve’s special creation aim is to get them to doubt and deny the Word of is a true description of what actually happened. Is God. Second, Satan’s use of Scripture to tempt Jesus’ view of the Genesis record ever given the due Jesus suggests that he did not doubt its content for a attention that it deserves? If not, why not? moment; instead he used it out of context to put Jesus Decisions “prove a bust when assumptions unravel” to the test. Third, Jesus answered the deceiver three (Drummond 2001, p. 253). It is dangerous to forget times with “It is written . . .” (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10), that people base their choices on assumptions (beliefs). which confirms beyond question the nature (truth One way to detect assumptions is by analyzing the and authority), value and purpose of the inspired information pertaining to each alternative and Scriptures. As Paul states, comparing the result with one’s point of reference. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is The assumptions that are untrue are the ones that profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for should engage our attention. Illusions mean we see instruction in righteousness, that the man of God things as better than they are; delusions are where may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good we see things that are not there at all. It is therefore work (2 Timothy 3:16–17). good to remember that truth cannot disprove truth. The word “all” at the beginning of this text cannot Let us now see what we can learn from Scripture possibly mean “some” of the Scripture. This is also about choices. There is no better place to begin than confirmed by how Jesus answered Satan: “. . . Man right in the beginning. shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew Decisions from a biblical perspective 4:4). Although Jesus used “word” in the singular, to It is well-known that the Creator instructed Adam reinforce His point, He qualified it with “every.” In to eat freely from the trees in the Garden except one: other words, He accepted the inspiration and authority “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” It is also of every single word that God had given, without known that God said to him that “in the day that exception. What Scripture says is what God says. It is you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16–17). therefore not strange that the apostle Paul instructed Shortly after Eve’s creation, Satan paid her a visit. To Timothy to present himself to God as “. . . a worker understand the nature of her temptation by Satan, we who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the have to shift our attention for a moment. word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15; cf. Proverbs 30:5–6). The apostle Paul reminded Christians that the Scripture says that Eve took fruit from the forbidden tempter and deceiver’s goal is to take “advantage” of tree and ate; “ . . . She also gave to her husband with them, and to that end employ various “devices” (plans, her, and he ate” (Genesis 3:6). And since Adam was 210 C. Joubert not deceived by Satan (1 Timothy 2:14), we have reveals that their choice is undergirded with two or reason to think that Adam deliberately decided to more arguments. I have taken the liberty to identify set himself and his judgment up over and against the some of them here. command God had given to him. What can we learn from this? Jerry Bergman First, no decision maker is without boundaries, be Bergman holds a B.S. and M.S. in psychology, it a rule, command, law, procedure, or protocol. These a Ph.D. in evaluation and research, an M.A. in boundaries are set to limit what we can and cannot sociology, and a Ph.D. in human biology. He offered do. And the same applies to a Christian’s beliefs. The two arguments in support of his belief in a six-day Bible, God’s written Word, does not allow us to believe creation: an argument for instantaneous creation and just anything. If that were not so, then, for example, 2 an argument from design and . Corinthians 10:5 and Jude 3 would not make sense.7 Bergman asks, “Where did life come from?” And, Second, everyday experience teaches us that people “What is the purpose of life?” Following the answers are forever testing boundaries; of course, in order to of the atheist and creationist respectively, Bergman see what they can get away with (cf. Ecclesiastes 8:11). presents the following thesis: life on earth could not The very exercise of judgment implies discrimination have originated by way of a gradual process, but or distinguishing between two options, and this seems must have been instantaneous. His first example is a to be exactly the case with Adam. His judgment was mousetrap, which is an assemblage of separable parts that he could get away if he chooses a different point and arranged in a certain structure. Bergman makes of reference than the one given to him by our Creator: two points. First, every machine has a certain number the word of God! of minimum parts to function properly. Second, all Third, the Bible not only reveals that choice is a the parts have to be in place at the same time for it particular human power, but also that God confronts to function. If one part is removed, the machine will His people with choices after the Fall. In Deuteronomy cease to function. 30:19, Moses “. . . set before [the Israelites] life and Bergman then registers an objection to his death, blessing and cursing.” He then asked them to argument, and that is that certain machines are able “choose life, that both you and your descendants may to operate with one less part. In the case of the trap, live.” Later in their history, Joshua posed a similar the base can be removed and fastened to the floor. choice to the Israelites. He asked them to “choose for However, the floor he argues, is just another base; but, yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the and this is Bergman’s point, the trap cannot operate gods . . . But as for me and my house, we will serve the or come into existence without an intelligence who LORD” (Joshua 24:15). It is therefore not altogether designed and assembled it. The mousetrap, in other strange that Jesus told His disciples that “No one words, speaks of intelligent design. can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one Can this understanding of a machine be extended and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one to the creation process which produced life? Bergman and despise the other. . . .” (Matthew 6:24). These texts thinks it can, and uses several more examples to make it evident that the choice is an either/or one, and substantiate his argument, for example, a cell, not something from both; the objects are mutually bacteria, viruses, simple life-forms, a zygote, the exclusive. It is therefore correct to conclude that creation of Adam in mature form, and the universe. God does not settle for middle-of-the-road choices (cf. The details will take us beyond the scope of this paper, Revelation 3:14–16), at least not where truth, loyalty, and I therefore highlight only a few points. and authority are the issues at stake. First, the challenge for the evolutionist is to provide an account for both the parts necessary for Section II: life (DNA, RNA, proteins) and their proper assembly. Young-Earth Creationist Scientists Bergman points out that many parts of life cannot In In six days: Why 50 scientists choose to believe in evolve (as evolutionists believe they do) without them creation (Ashton 2000), we find the reasons why 50 evolving simultaneously with others. Some parts, in scientists made creation in six literal days of 24-hours other words, cannot “wait” for other parts to evolve. each their preferred choice. As previously indicated, For this reason, only instantaneous creation of all the I present the reasons, albeit very briefly, of Drs. necessary parts as a functioning unit can produce Jerry Bergman, Jonathan Sarfati, Andrew Snelling, life. He says, and Kurt Wise. Careful reading of their testimonies No compelling evidence has ever been presented to

7 “. . . casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5); “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Is Young-Earth Creationism a Bad Choice? An Answer to Theistic Evolutionists 211

disprove this conclusion, and much evidence exists for a fish the size of golf ball at a distance of 230 ft or the instantaneous creation requirement, such as the 70 m), the complicated flight movements of insects, discovery that most nucleotides degrade rather fast the complexity of a self-reproducing organism and its at the temperatures scientists conclude existed on the genetic information, the rotary system that drives the early earth (Irion 1998) (Ashton 2000, pp. 27–28). flagellum of bacterium, the complex compound eyes Second, one of the most compelling evidences of some trilobites, lobster eyes, and our chemical- in support of instantaneous creation comes from detecting sense (smell). everyday knowledge of the world, and that is that Sarfati then compares chemical evolutionary information does not come about by chance. If left to theories with the facts of chemistry, and provides and itself, disorder usually soon results. In other words, discusses evidence that refutes the evolutionist belief only a being with intelligence can produce information that all life originated from some “chemical soup” and keep it from collapsing into disorder. That a (Ashton 2000, pp. 81–84). One piece of evidence is complex structure such as a living organism could worth highlighting, and is therefore presented in full. be formed by chance without intelligent input has Sarfati says: never been demonstrated in the lab or anywhere else. Many of life’s chemicals come in two forms: “left- Bergman then illustrated that the probability of life handed” and “right-handed.” Life requires polymers arising by chance is so remote that many researchers with all building blocks having the same “handedness” have to label it an impossibility. (homochirality)—proteins have only “left-handed” Bergman concludes that time alone cannot allow amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only for the construction of life in the absence of deliberate “right-handed” sugars. Living things have special intelligent design, no matter what the initial conditions molecular machinery to produce homochirality. But might have been. It is for this reason that evolutionists ordinary undirected chemistry, as in the hypothetical consider human beings as “a glorious evolutionary primordial soup, would produce equal mixtures of accident (Gould 1989, see also Kayzer 1997, p. 92)” left- and right-handed molecules, called racemates. (Ashton 2000, p. 37). In a word, it is impossible for Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific life to come from non-life or for something to originate shapes required for enzymes; rather, they would have itself. the side chains sticking randomly. Also, a wrong- handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing a-helix Jonathan Sarfati in proteins. DNA could not be stabilized in a helix Sarfati holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and if even a small proportion of the wrong-handed form presents an argument from Scripture and an argument was present, so it could not form long chains. This from designed perfection. He begins by stating that means it could not store much information, so it could there are excellent evidences from , not support life [Thiemann 1973, pp. 32–33]. A small science, fulfilled prophecy, and the claims of Jesus fraction of wrong-handed molecules terminates RNA Christ to support the Bible’s claim to be the written replication [Joyce et al. 1984, pp. 602–604]. A recent Word of God, “completely authoritative on everything world conference on “The Origin of Homochirality and it teaches (2 Timothy 3:15–17)” (Ashton 2000, p. 78). Life” made it clear that the origin of this handedness His point of departure in showing scientific evidence is a complete mystery to evolutionists [Cohen 1995, for design in nature is Romans 1:20: pp. 1265–1266] (Ashton 2000, p. 82). For since the creation of the world His invisible Sarfati concludes his testimony on the following attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the note: things that are made, even His eternal power and I believe in a recent creation in six consecutive normal Godhead, so that they are without excuse, . . . days because the only eyewitness tells us this is what Sarfati’s thesis is that all the wonderful works He did, and He has shown that He should be trusted. of design in this world point to a great designer; an He also makes it clear that no death (of the nephesh intellectually honest person cannot conclude otherwise. animals) occurred before Adam’s [sin]. While this He acknowledges that our sin-cursed world (Genesis requires faith, it is a faith amply supported by science, 3:16–19; Romans 8:20–23) serves as evidence that as I can confirm from my own specialist field (Ashton many of the Creator’s original designs are no longer 2000, p. 84). benevolent, and that others have deteriorated because of mutations. Despite the fact that God’s designs Andrew Snelling have been marred by sin in the world and God’s Snelling holds a Ph.D. in geology and believes that curse on creation, there are many structures that life originated on earth over a period of six literal days have retained their physical perfection. He then lists followed later by a year-long geological catastrophe and briefly discusses some of these structures, such that totally renovated the earth’s surface. He offers as the dolphin’s sonar system (a dolphin can detect three arguments. The first is his argument from 212 C. Joubert

Scripture: that is what the Bible teaches, trilobites arose, the natural conclusion is that they not only in the opening chapters of the , have been designed and created in mature form by but also throughout the Old and New Testaments, God’s “Let the earth bring forth . . . and it was so” (cf. including being confirmed by Jesus Christ himself Genesis 1:24). (Ashton 2000, p. 291). Snelling also focuses on the Flood. Three points Snelling draws attention to an important point that are noteworthy. First, it is logical to predict that is often forgotten by those interested in the debate the Flood event would leave behind billions of dead between creationists and evolutionists of whatever animals and plants buried in sediments eroded and stripe, and that is no matter how clever scientists are deposited by the moving flood waters, that they would in their research, they can only study all the evidence end up being fossils in rock layers laid down by water as it exists today and then extrapolate backwards into all over the globe. And that is exactly what geologists the past. In order for that to be successful, scientists find. Second, evidence shows that the fossil deposits have to make assumptions, and can therefore not and rock strata were formed catastrophically. Snelling hold their findings and their interpretations of what presents and discusses some of the evidence found in happened with absolute certainty. In contrast to the Grand Canyon. And third, no geologist denies that scientific tentativeness is the Bible, which claims the oceans once covered the land, and that is exactly over 3,000 times to be the Word of God, who is not what one would expect from a Bible that is true. only transcendent and personal, but also omniscient After discussing ongoing research, Snelling sums and totally truthful. Thus, when one compares the up his reasons for believing in a creation of six literal biblical account of the origin of life and the global days and God’s destruction of life and the earth by a Flood with the evolutionary view of many millions of year-long cataclysmic global Flood as follows: years of billions of creatures living and dying through first, and foremost, because the Bible clearly records countless geological ages, it quickly becomes obvious these events as real, literal history, and second, that there are irreconcilable contradictions between because the scientific evidence, correctly understood, them. So we are faced with an either/or choice: either is totally consistent with this biblical account (Ashton the evolutionary view of the evidence is true, or that 2000, p. 300). of the biblical record of creation in six literal days, no death and suffering prior to the Fall, and the Kurt Wise global Flood. Snelling’s choice is the trustworthiness Wise holds a Ph.D. in , and his of Scripture and the nature and character of the testimony is more a narrative of the process of how Creator: he arrived at his choice of young-earth creationism. It follows then that having made one’s decision about In short, an earth that is millions of years old clashed the reliability and truthfulness of these events as with the convictions he holds about the Bible. In his recorded in the Bible, ultimately by God himself as words, claimed, there is no reason why the truthfulness of the I am a young-age creationist because that is my Bible cannot be tested historically and scientifically understanding of Scripture. As I shared with my (Ashton 2000, pp. 292–293). professors years ago when I was in college, if all the Snelling’s second argument is an argument from evidence in the universe turned against creationism, complex design. He tells us that his favorite example is I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be the trilobites, arthropods (invertebrates with jointed a creationist because that is what the Word of God legs) that are extinct and only found as fossils. Their seems to indicate. Here I must stand (Ashton 2000, anatomy reveals that they are, perhaps, the most p. 355). complex of all invertebrate creatures. Snelling points In the beginning of this paper, I pointed out that out that some scientists believe that the aggregate Wise’s choice is somewhat bewildering to both the (schizochroal) eyes of some trilobites were the most atheist Richard Dawkins and the theistic evolutionist sophisticated optical systems ever utilized by many Francis Beckwith. I have also pointed out that it organisms. Although their complexity is regarded as seems that Wise’s only mistake seems to be that he did “primitive,” it creates a dilemma for the evolutionist: not make theistic evolutionism his preferred choice. It there “are no possible ancestors to the trilobites in the would therefore be useful to see what sort of evidence rock layers beneath where the trilobites are found, for Wise offers in support of young-earth creationism. example, in the Grand Canyon” (Ashton 2000, p. 294). He says that the best extra-biblical evidence for The evidence reveals that the trilobites appeared creation comes from the design of organisms past and very suddenly in the geological record, fully formed, present. He refers to the schizochroal compound eye and as complexly integrated creatures with the most of the trilobite (a horseshoe crab-like organism) which sophisticated systems ever used by an organism. “contains the only known lens in the biological world Since there are no clues as to how the complexity of which corrects for focusing problems that result from Is Young-Earth Creationism a Bad Choice? An Answer to Theistic Evolutionists 213 using non-flexible lenses” (Wise 1998). The designs (Sparks 2010, p. 7). of the lenses, he says, are the very same designs that Any understanding of Scripture that excludes or man himself has developed to correct for the same indicts the divine Himself is fundamentally flawed problems. Moreover, the design of this eye “combines and false. For the purposes of the discussion, I this optimum focusing capability with the optimum will assume that Jesus and the writers of the New sensitivity to motion provided by the compound eye Testament had a literal-historical understanding of as well as the stereoscopic (3-D) vision provided Genesis 1–11. It appears that Dr. Denis Lamoureux by closely spaced eyes” (Wise 1998). In short, the spoke for all theistic evolutionists when he admitted schizochroal eye of the trilobite is unique among eyes. that the Therefore, the origin of its design cannot be accounted greatest problem with evolutionary creation is that for in terms of any natural cause. “Among available it rejects the traditional literal interpretation of the hypotheses, creation by God is the most reasonable opening chapters of Scripture . . . . Even more troubling hypothesis” (Wise 1998). for evolutionary creation is the fact that the New Wise also discusses several characteristics of Testament writers, including Jesus Himself, refer human population and genetics which he believes to Genesis 1–11 as literal history (Matthew 19:4–6; are “more easily explained by the Biblical scenario Romans 5:12–14; Hebrews 4:4–7; 2 Peter 2:4–5) of human history than they are explained by the (Lamoureux 2010, p. 4). conventional, evolutionary view of human history” However, it is possible to reason that only some (Wise 1999, p. 3). of Scripture is inspired. Alternatively, one could always reason that Jesus and the writers of the New Concluding Comments Testament were mistaken in their understanding; By way of summary, it is evident that the judgment they were human, and to be human implies and and choice of each of the scientists reflect the workings entails error. of the mind within a distinctive Christian (biblical) The person who wishes to claim that only some of worldview. They have a clear grasp of the evolution Scripture is inspired by God is facing at least three and creationist controversy; they use the Scriptures immediate obstacles. First, such a claim excludes as their point of reference, without rejecting the the source of inspiration and contradicts Scripture: scientific evidence. In other words, they use Scripture “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is to anchor their science; they consider the evidence for profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for and against their choice, and are fully aware of the instruction in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16). assumptions driving the evolutionary hypothesis of Second, if it is true that only some of Scripture the origin of the world and life on earth. is inspired, then not all Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and training in The divine inspiration of Scripture righteousness. However, it is impossible for God to What I wish to do next is to offer an argument in lie (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2). Thus, to claim that support of their view of Scripture because many theistic only some Scripture is inspired and profitable is evolutionists believe that neither our Scriptures tantamount to thinking that two truths—God and nor our Lord Jesus Christ is without error. Or to the Word of God—could oppose each other, or that a state this affirmatively, many theistic evolutionists proposition could be simultaneously true and false, have to believe both the Scriptures and the Lord which is absurd; truth can not be opposed to itself. Jesus Christ are in error. Giberson and Collins, for Third, if only some of Scripture is inspired and example, say that it is a mistake to assume that the profitable, then not all of its teachings are accurate. If “concept of inspiration” entails the “factual accuracy” so, then it becomes impossible to formulate coherent of Scripture, “as though God’s role were nothing more doctrines from it. Moreover, it would be egregious than a divine fact checker, preventing the biblical to think that Christians should hold their beliefs authors from making mistakes” (Giberson and tentatively, since theistic evolutionism implies and Collins 2011, p. 102). Biblical scholar and also writer entails that science serves as arbiter of matters about for BioLogos, Kenton Sparks, rightly affirms that which the Bible clearly speaks. Can science verify the evangelical “tradition commonly holds that God, that a virgin could become pregnant apart from the in giving us Scripture, shielded it from the inerrant seed of a man, that Jesus turned water into wine in influences of its finite, fallen human authors” (Sparks an instant, or that He was resurrected from the dead? 2010, p. 2). However, he concludes that it is a mistake; Should the errors of Jesus’ teaching be restricted to the evidence points in the opposite direction: what He believed about Genesis 1–11, and if so, by If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to what standard should it not be extended to what He time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, taught about Jonah and the big fish or the future? Paul, [and] John wrote Scripture without error Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things and you 214 C. Joubert do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly be full of human mistakes and errors about history? things?” (John 3:12). Anyone who wishes to place It suffices to make two points. First, Christians have restrictions on His teachings based in historical facts no Christ except the one whom the apostles have must, to be consistent, extend those restrictions to given to them. The apostles were dependent on our His spiritual teachings. The following example clearly Lord for the truth of their teaching and knowledge, illustrates that the Bible’s historical statements are as we are dependent on them for ours. Second, if fundamental to its spiritual truth. Paul said, “This Christians discredit those on whose testimony alone is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that their beliefs and doctrines depends, then, they must Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, assume that what Jesus taught the apostles could not of whom I am chief” (1 Timothy 1:15). If we cannot have been true. It can mean nothing less than Jesus be certain that Jesus came into the world, then we became an accomplice in error and falsehood. We thus cannot be certain that He came to save sinners. And see, to the extent that the apostles are discredited if we cannot be certain that Jesus died, was buried, as authoritative teachers of truth, to that extent our and rose bodily from the dead, then Christians’ faith Lord is discredited with them. is in vain and they are still in their sins and can have The third reason why the objection that neither no hope of resurrection after their own deaths (1 Jesus nor the apostles were inerrant cannot hold Corinthians 15:1–19). The fact that about two thirds is because it rests on a misconception of the nature of the Old Testament and over one third of the New and character of the Creator. It is true, God used the Testament were written in historical narrative shows unique thinking, life experiences, and writing styles that the history of the Bible is foundational to its of the human authors to pen Scripture, but we have theology and morality. no reason to think that their humanness corrupted The objection that neither Jesus nor the apostles the final result with errors. They were writing for were inerrant rests on two assumptions: (1) humans God and by His Spirit. God is a God of truth (Isaiah are finite; because they are finite, they are subject 65:16); He cannot lie, and His “eyes are purer than to limitations (for example, it is possible to make to behold evil” (Habakkuk 1:13). It would have been mistakes); (2) they did not possess exhaustive an evil thing if God allowed the writers of Scripture knowledge (for example, Jesus did not know when the to record what they believed to be true, but which end of the world would come—Mark 13:32). There God knew was actually false. The same point can are three major reasons why this kind of reasoning also be stated differently: It is an egregious thing to cannot stand. The first is because the logic does not think that the Creator allowed Jesus and the writers make sense. If this kind of reasoning is correct, then of Scripture to hold false beliefs about the Genesis the following inferences must also be true, which is record of creation, for example, the special creation of absurd: (a) no child of, say, between 3 and 15 can ever a literal Adam—on the sixth day of creation (Genesis speak the truth, for they are human, and (2) no one 1:26–31), directly, separately from animals, and (including scholars who refer to themselves as theistic in mature form (Genesis 2:7)—and then waited for evolutionists) can ever claim to speak the truth about followers of Lyell and Darwin to reveal to Christians anything for no one has exhaustive knowledge of how He actually created the world. Therefore, to posit everything. errors in Scripture is to exclude or indict the divine However, the simple fact is that children can Spirit of truth, which means this is a fundamentally and do speak the truth. Thus, to be human and flawed understanding of inspiration, and is therefore have limitations does not necessarily imply and/or false. entail error. The second reason is Paul claimed to have received his gospel through a revelation of our Conclusion resurrected Lord and Saviour (Galatians 1:11–12). We have learned a few things about decision Now if what Paul believed about Genesis 1–3 was making. Of first importance is to know when and why wrong, then Jesus could not have been right in what decisions go awry. How decision makers judge, why, He believed about those same chapters. So, if Paul and with what effects are central questions for people was wrong then Jesus must have revealed falsehood interested in decision making. We also learned several to Paul, and that is a serious indictment against our things about the debate between biblical Christians Creator. (young-earth creationists) and theistic evolutionists. Scripture reveals that Jesus promised His Theistic evolutionists do their best to convince people disciples that He would send a Helper to them after that the biblical record of creation cannot be trusted His ascension to the Father: the Spirit of truth (John as a straightforward historical account because such 15:26–27; cf. 14:26). Now if Jesus intended that His interpretation is contrary to “science” (by which they disciples would one day write inspired Scripture, do mean the evolutionist majority view of origins). But we have any reason to think that the outcome would such an approach flies in the face of the arguments and Is Young-Earth Creationism a Bad Choice? An Answer to Theistic Evolutionists 215 evidence that were presented. Theistic evolutionists Drummond, H. 2001. The art of decision making. Mirrors of also do their best to create the impression that they imagination, masks of fate. West Sussex, England: John believe that the Bible is true in matters of faith (that Wiley & Sons. is, salvation and spirituality), but not necessarily Eysenck, M. W. and M. T. Keane. 2000. Cognitive psychology. A student’s handbook, 4th ed. East Sussex, United Kingdom: always true in its statements related to history or Psychology Press. science. But if the Bible is in error in its historical or Falk, D. R. 2004. Coming to peace with science. Bridging scientific statements, then how can it be trustworthy the worlds of faith and biology. Downers Grove, Illinois: in matters of faith? InterVarsity Press. However, the arguments and evidence presented Futuyma, D. J. 1983. Science on trial: The case for evolution. in this paper reveal if young-earth creationists are New York, New York: Pantheon. intellectually bankrupt, as Collins and some of his Giberson, K. W. and F. S. Collins. 2011. The language of science fellows aver; if Jesus and the writers of the New and faith: Straight answers to genuine questions. Downers Testament believed in a literal-historical record of Grove, Illinois: IVP Books. Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the creation, as theistic evolutionists rightly acknowledge, nature of history. New York, New York: W. W. Norton & then what is true of young-earth creationists must be Company. true of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament. Grigg, R. 1996. How long were the days of Genesis 1? What But since young-earth creationists hold the same did God intend us to understand from the words He used? understanding of Genesis 1–11 as their Lord Jesus Retrieved from http://creation.com/how-long-were-the- Christ and the New Testament writers, they can days-of-genesis-1 on March 8, 2011. answer the question this paper set out to answer: Ham, K. 2001. The big picture. Being wrong about the six days “Is young-earth creationism a bad choice?” There of creation does not automatically mean someone is not a are at least three reasons: in contrast to theistic Christian. But if you think that makes it unimportant, evolutionism it inspires confidence in the inerrancy stand back and look at the big picture . . . . Retrieved from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v23/n2/ of Scripture; in contrast to theistic evolutionism it bigpicture on February 9, 2011. inspires confidence in the nature and character of Ham, K. 2007. Couldn’t God have used evolution? Retrieved the Creator; and it serves as a rational and profitable from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/ alternative to competing views on origins. couldnt-god-have-used-evolution on February 2011. Ham, K., T. Mortenson, and C. Wieland. 2003. Are (biblical) Acknowledgments creationists ‘cornered’?—A response to Dr J. P. Moreland. I wish to thank the reviewers of this paper for TJ 17, no. 3:43–50. their valuable and much appreciated suggestions and Irion, R. 1998. Ocean scientists find life, warmth in the seas. corrections. Science 279, no. 5355:1302–1303. Joubert, C. 2011. What makes us human, and why it is not the brain: A creationist defence of the soul. Answers References Research Journal 4:217–232. Retrieved from http://www. Ashton, J. F. ed. 2000. In six days. Why 50 scientists choose to answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/human-brain- believe in creation. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. soul. Beckwith, F. J. 2009. How to be an anti-intelligent design Joyce, G. F., G. M. Visser, C. A. van Boeckel, J. H. van Boom, advocate. Retrieved from https://bearspace.baylor.edu/ L. E. Orgel, and J. van Westeren. 1984. Chiral selection in Francis_Beckwith/www/Sites/USTJLPP.pdf on June 26, poly(C)-directed synthesis of oligo(G). Nature 310:602– 2011. 604. Bell, P. B. 2002. The portrayal of creationists by their Kayzer, W. 1997. A glorious accident: Understanding our place evolutionist detractors. TJ 16, no. 2:46–53. in the cosmic puzzle. New York, New York: W. W. Freeman Bergman, J. 2010. Why orthodox Darwinism demands & Co. atheism. Answers Research Journal 3:147–152. Retrieved Kulikovsky, A. S. 2007. Creation and Genesis: A historical from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/ survey. Creation Research Society Quarterly 43:206–219. orthodox-darwinism-atheism. Kulikovsky, A. S. 2008. Creationism, science and peer review. BioLogos. About the BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved from Journal of Creation 22, no. 1:44–49. www.biologos.org/about on March 11, 2011. Lamoureux, D. O. 2010. Evolutionary creation: Moving beyond Cohen, J. 1995. Getting all turned around over the origins of the evolution versus creation debate. Christian Higher life on earth. Science 267:1265–1266. Education 9, no. 1:28–48. Collins, F. S. 2007. The language of God: A scientist presents Mook, J. R. 2008. The church fathers on Genesis, the Flood evidence for belief. London, United Kingdom: Pocket Books. and the age of the earth. In Coming to grips with Genesis. Coyne, J. 2009. Seeing and believing. The New Republic. Biblical authority and the age of the earth, ed, T. Mortenson Retrieved from http://www.tnr.com/article/books/seeing- and T. H. Ury, pp. 23–52. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master and-believing# on June 11, 2011. Books. Denton, M. 1985. Evolution: A theory in crisis, new developments Mortenson, T. 2004. Philosophical and the age of in science are challenging orthodox Darwinism. Chevy the earth: Are they related? The Master’s Seminary Journal Chase, Maryland: Adler & Adler Publishers. 15, no. 1:71–92. 216 C. Joubert

Mortenson, T. 2008. “Deep time” and the church’s compromise: Sparks, K. 2010. After inerrancy. Evangelicals and the Bible Historical background. In Coming to grips with Genesis. in a postmodern age. Retrieved from http://biologos.org/ Biblical authority and the age of the earth, ed. T. Mortenson uploads/static-content/sparks_scholarly_essay.pdf on April and T. H. Ury, pp. 79–104. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master 25, 2011. Books. Spetner, L. 1998. Not by chance! Shattering the modern theory Mortenson, T. and H. Ury. 2008. Affirmations and denials of evolution. New York, New York: The Judaica Press. essential to a consistent Christian (biblical) worldview. Sternberg, R. J. 2003. Cognitive psychology, 3rd ed. Belmont, In Coming to grips with Genesis. Biblical authority and California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. the age of the earth, ed. T. Mortenson and T. H. Ury, Swinburne, R. 2001. Natural theology in the light of modern pp. 453–458. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. and biology. Pontificiae Academiae Scientiarum Mortenson, T. 2009a. Creation theodicy in light of Genesis Scripta Varia 99:310–317. and modern science: A young-earth creationist response to Thiemann, W. ed. 1973. International symposium on generation William Dembski. Answers Research Journal 2:151–167. and amplification of asymmetry in chemical systems. Jülich, Retrieved from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ Germany, pp. 32–33. Cited in Wilder-Smith, A. E. 1981. The arj/v2/n1/dembskis-theodicy-refuted. natural sciences know nothing of evolution. Green Forest, Mortenson, T. 2009b. Systematic theology texts and the age Arkansas: Master Books. of the earth: A response to the views of Erickson, Grudem, Troyka, L. Q. 1996. Handbook for writers, 4th ed. Parsippany, and Lewis and Demarest. Answers Research Journal New Jersey: Simon & Schuster. 2:175–200. Retrieved from http://www.answersingenesis. Williams, A. 2006. Taking firm hold on an illusion.Journal of org/contents/379/arj/v2/Systematic_theology_Erickson_ Creation 20, no. 3:45–49. Grudem_Lewis.pdf. Wise, K. 1998. My favorite evidence for creation! Retrieved Oard, M. J. 2009. Poor scholarship and self-deception. Journal from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/02/16/ of Creation 23, no. 2:47–52. kurt-wise on July 15, 2012. Sarfati, J. 1999. Refuting evolution. , : Wise, K. 1999. Biblical history of human population. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_ PDFArchives/science/SC1W0899.pdf on July 15, 2012.